Chilean President Sebastian Pinera has praised as “brave and mature” a pregnant 11-year-old rape victim who said she was happy to have the child.

The girl said during a TV interview the child would be “like having a doll”.

Experts criticised Mr Pinera’s comments as having no scientific foundation.

Mr Pinera supports Chile’s abortion laws, which outlaw the practice in all circumstances. His critics want it legalised in cases of rape, and want the girl to be allowed an abortion.

The 11-year-old girl appeared in a TV interview on Monday, saying: “I’m going to love the baby very much, even though it comes from that man who hurt me.

“It will be like having a doll in my arms.”

The girl was raped repeatedly over a two-year period by her mother’s boyfriend, who has since been arrested.

Mr Pinera said he had asked the health minister to personally look after the girl’s health.

“She surprised us all with words showing depth and maturity when she said that, despite the pain caused by the man who raped her, she wanted to have and take care of her baby,” he said.

Forensic psychologist Giorgio Agostini said the girl would not have the mental or emotional capacity to understand her situation.

“What the president is saying doesn’t get close to the psychological truth of an 11-year-old-girl,” he told the Associated Press news agency.

“It’s a subjective view that is not based on any scientific reasoning.”

The girl’s case has already sparked a public debate about abortion.

Campaigners argue that the laws, which date back to the authoritarian rule of Gen Augusto Pinochet, should be changed to allow for abortions in cases of rape or when the mother’s health is at risk.

Michelle Bachelet, the likely presidential candidate next year for the left-leaning opposition, supports the campaign.

Ms Bachelet earlier commented that the 11-year-old girl need to be protected.

“I think a therapeutic abortion, in this case because of rape, would be in order,” she said.

Chile is one of seven Latin American countries where abortion is completely banned.

Last month, the case of a seriously ill woman in El Salvador made international headlines when the courts upheld the ban on abortion even though the woman’s life was at risk and the foetus was unlikely to survive.

This bill manages to allow abortion if a woman’s life is at risk while at the same time protecting the life of the fetus, as required in the Irish Constitution, and at the same time, meeting the conditions laid down by the European Court to legislate clearly on matters arising from previous court cases.

The bill allows abortion“only if there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother”, for example arising from a physical illness. It says that it is “not necessary for medical practitioners to be of the opinion that the risk to the woman’s life is inevitable or immediate, as this approach insufficiently vindicates the pregnant woman’s right to life”. However, it repeats often that there must be a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother.

It also says: “In circumstances where the unborn may be potentially viable outside the womb, doctors must make all efforts to sustain its life after delivery. However, that requirement does not go so far as to oblige a medical practitioner to disregard a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman on the basis that it will result in the death of the unborn.”

This appears to take particular account of what happened to Savita Halappanavar, as does the name of the bill.

It creates separate conditions for what to do if the woman is threatening suicide, including requiring at least three medical opinions as to whether to allow an abortion on this ground.

It makes it clear that legal abortion will be very rare. It allows a woman to appeal a decision against her but makes it extremely difficult to do so.

It allows for conscientious objection by individuals but NOT by institutions, which is important, and requires anyone objecting to find another medical professional to refer the woman to.

The bureacracy for medical professional control of the decision to allow an abortion is prodigious and possibly even unworkable in practice if a woman’s life is at risk. It potentially requires many medical professionals to be involved to agree an abortion is legal, far more than in any other country. The numbers required to agree to an abortion in case of a threat of suicide appear to say it is hard to believe any woman would actually commit suicide and so she must be examined by many to prove it. It requires any abortion to take place in an obstetric hospital unless it is a medical emergency, which also has specific conditions attached.

It makes it very clear that there is no restriction on travelling to another country for an abortion where it is legal. It almost invites women to continue doing so rather than go through this process.

Last, and not least, it says that anyone found providing or having an illegal abortion will be subject to punishment of up to 14 years in prison. This is very serious. In my opinion, it is perhaps the worst aspect of this bill from Irish women’s point of view.

I believe this bill is extremely successful at doing exactly what the European Court required, to clarify the law when a pregnant woman’s life is at risk, and not a step further. For all the easy criticism we can make of every word of it, it is a gift to the politicians who must have felt (no matter what their personal views) that their political lives were not worth having this fight. They can now say “We did exactly what we were told to do by the European Court” and no more. It will be impossible to oppose it – in those terms – from any point of view. The person/people who drafted it deserve a gold star for compliance with the political necessity involved.

The French law greatly expands access to abortions and also offers free and anonymous birth control to teenagers ages 15 to 18. France’s National Assembly passed the expansive abortion bill in October, and the legislation was approved by the Senate shortly thereafter.

The new law seeks to make abortion more easily attainable and offer free contraceptives to cut down on unwanted pregnancies. According to the French Directorate for Research, Studies, Evaluation and Statistics, 225,000 abortions were performed in France in 2010.

As Radio France Internationale notes, free access to birth control includes first and second generation contraceptive pills, along with contraceptive implants and sterilization. However, the law will not include other contraceptives, such as condoms.

Before the law was passed, France only offered to cover up to 80 percent of [the cost of] procedures to terminate pregnancies. Contraception costs were also partially refunded with reimbursements set at 65 percent. France provides remunerations for abortions and contraceptives through its social security funds.

On Friday, March 15th, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will hold a landmark hearing on the negative impactof criminal abortion laws. It is the first time the IACHR will hear testimony on theharmful effects these laws have on the lives of young girls and women and their families in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil and Peru.

Ipas and Ipas Bolivia, in collaboration with Women’s Link Worldwide, ISER/Brazil, Promsex/Peru, Argentina, the Special Rapporteurship on the Right to Sexual and Reproductive Rights/Dhesca Brazilian Platform and Asociación por los Derechos Civiles/Argentina, will present findings from legal research on the impact of abortion criminalization on women’s lives, health and criminal justice systems. These findings indicate that states are systematically violating women’s rights to health, equality and non-discrimination, privacy and due process of law. The organizations will present recommendations to the IACHR on measures to be taken by states to respect and protect women’s human rights.

Legal indications for abortion are extremely limited throughout Latin America, and several countries-Nicaragua, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic and Chile-have outlawed abortion entirely, even when necessary to save a woman’s life. Previous regional human rights decisions have called on states to ensure access to abortion in narrow circumstances-such as when a pregnancy threatens a woman’s health or if she’s been raped. This hearing will address the broader social and legal impact of criminal laws.

The hearing will be take place 11:30 a.m. at the IACHR’s Rubén Darío Room (8th floor), 1889 F Street, NW, Washington, DC. It will also be webcast live on IACHR’s web site. It will be conducted in Spanish, with translation available.

Supporters of the RH Bill celebrate, as lawmakers pass the landmark birth control legislation on December 17.

Editor’s note: Miriam Defensor Santiago is in her third term as a member of the Philippines Senate and a co-sponsor of the Reproductive Health Bill. She is also the founder of People’s Reform Party. Last year she was selected to be a judge in the International Criminal Court, though she has still to take office.

Manila, Philippines (CNN) — We were like David against Goliath. We fought long and hard, and in the end we prevailed.

After 14 long years in the dustbins of Congress, mainly due to strong opposition from the Catholic Church, the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill was approved by both the Senate and the House of Representatives on Monday, 17 December 2012.

Indeed, there is no force more powerful than an idea whose time has come. And the time for a Philippine reproductive health law is now.

The Philippines remains one of the poorest countries in the world because, among other things, for a long time, it refused to acknowledge what could easily be seen when one glances out the window: the country desperately needs a reproductive health law.

Not having a reproductive health law is cruelty to the poor. The poor are miserable because, among other reasons, they have so many children. Providing reproductive knowledge and information through government intervention is the humane thing to do. It can help the poor escape the vicious cycle of poverty by giving them options on how to manage their sexual lives, plan their families and control their procreative activities. The phrase “reproductive rights” includes the idea of being able to make reproductive decisions free from discrimination, coercion or violence.

Many poor women do not receive information on how to receive reproductive health care. Our underprivileged women have to accept standards lower than what they need, want, or deserve. According to the Department of Health, the mortality rate for Filipino mothers increased to 221 per 100,000 live births in 2011 from 162 per 100,000 live births in 2009. But not only do the women suffer, the children do, too. The children remain undernourished and undereducated because their parents are ignorant about reproductive health care and choices.

In short, the bill merely wants to empower a Filipino woman from the poorest economic class to march to the nearest facility operated by the Department of Health or the local government unit, to demand information on a family planning product or supply of her choice. The bill, at the simplest level, wants to give an indigent married woman the freedom of informed choice concerning her reproductive rights.

If the bill is highly controversial, it is not because it is dangerous to humans or to the planet. It is not subversive of the political order. It is not a fascist diktat of a totalitarian power structure. The reason this bill is emotionally charged is because of the fervent opposition of the Catholic Church in the Philippines and those who wish to be perceived as its champions.

Yet the majority of Catholic countries around the world have passed reproductive health laws, even Italy where the Vatican City is located. Other nations include Spain, Portugal, Paraguay, Mexico, Guatemala, Ecuador, Colombia and Argentina.

Apart from the Catholic Church, all other major religions in the Philippines support the RH Bill. Other major Christian churches have not only officially endorsed the bill but have published learned treatises explaining their position. Support also comes from the Interfaith Partnership for the Promotion of Responsible Parenthood, the National Council of Churches in the Philippines, the Iglesia ni Cristo and the Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches.

The position of these Christian bodies is supported by the most authoritative body of Islamic clerics in the Philippines, the Assembly of Darul-Iftah of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao. These constitute the top-ranking ulama, deemed to have the authority to issue opinions on matters facing Islam and Muslims. In 2003, they issued a fatwah or religious ruling called “Call to Greatness.” It gives Muslim couples a free choice on whether to practice family planning.

The Filipino people, regardless of religion, are in favor of RH. In June 2011, the Social Weather Stations, a survey group, reported that 73% of Filipinos want information from the government on all legal methods of family planning, while 82% say family planning method is a personal choice of couples and no one should interfere with it. An October 2012 survey among young people aged 15 to 19 years old in Manila shows that 83% agree that there should be a law in the Philippines on reproductive health and family planning.

This is the will of the Filipino people; it is the democratic expression of what the public wants from government. The anti-RH groups are mute on this ineluctable fact.

Reproductive health care is a human right. The people are entitled to demand it from their government and the government is obligated to provide it to its constituents.

Savita Halappanavar’s life ended because medics put the life of her unborn child – who they knew would die anyway – before hers, and because those medics were prevented by law from performing a procedure that would have saved her.

This week I’ve been thinking a lot about the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar, the 31 year old dentist who passed away in a Galway hospital last month, after being refused an abortion that could have saved her life. By the time this goes live, I’m sure the controversy will have reached Frankenstorm proportions.

Halappanavar was admitted to hospital miscarrying at 17 weeks. However, abortion is illegal in Ireland, and because the foetal heartbeat was still beating, medics refused to perform the medical abortion she needed and begged for. She miscarried days later, but not before she’d contracted the septicemia that would go on to kill her.

Anti-choice campaigners may rabbit on about the provision under law that states that abortion can be provided when there’s a direct threat to a woman’s life, or claim that the medics looking after Halappanavar should have induced labour in order to save her life.

The reality, as we’ve now seen, is that abortions are just not performed. And as for their suggestion that medics should have induced the birth of her unborn, but dying foetus? It would have been both cruel and totally unnecessary when the foetal heartbeat could have been stopped as the first step of the abortion Halappanavar repeatedly asked for.

The fact is, her baby, sadly, was not going to survive no matter what course of action her doctors took. So why not opt for the one that would have saved her?

Last week, I was contacted by Joyce Arthur, who is the Executive Director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC). Arthur emailed members of the British media wanting to talk about Nadine Dorries’ recent attempts to reduce the time limits on abortions in Britain.

She explained that abortion had been fully decriminalised in Canada in 1988 because it was felt that the application of either civil or criminal laws to medicine was inappropriate.

Abortions are seen as a matter for women and their doctors, not law-makers and politicians, and the overall impact has been positive – abortion rates had fallen. Arthur also felt that Dorries, and her strategies, were ‘misguided.’

Happy to talk to anyone who describes Nadine Dorries as ‘misguided,’ I contacted her for an interview.

Who are the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, and what do you do?

The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada is a national advocacy group for abortion rights so we do lobbying and education. We act on various issues, working with MPs, to protect the abortion rights that we have and also try and improve access to abortion in different ways.

What abortion services are freely available in Canada? Are they available on the Canadian National Health Service for free?

We do have universal healthcare [an equivalent to the NHS] so it is fully covered. In 1969, abortion was decriminalised to allow women to go before a therapeutic approval committee of three doctors to get approval before an abortion.

Abortions were available at some hospitals but it turned out that the committees were very arbitrary in how they made decisions so that law was completely struck down by our Supreme Court in 1988.

After that, access improved. Before 1988 abortions were funded [by the health service] and that continued. We had a fight over the next ten years of getting private abortion clinics, which had previously been illegal, funded.

In your email to me you said, “Parliamentary debate led by MP Nadine Dorries on reducing the time limit for abortion is misguided since criminal or civil law is inappropriate in medicine.”

Can you explain to us how the laws surrounding abortion in Canada works?

We don’t actually have any laws. Basically, abortion care is delivered just like any other healthcare. We don’t use civil or criminal law in healthcare normally. Healthcare is delivered by the medical profession and they have their internal policies, they have a code of ethics for doctors around informed consent, all the normal stuff like that.

Really what it comes down to is a decision between a woman and her doctor, and the doctor has discretion over what’s appropriate for each patient and what their own limits are, and so on and so forth. They decide whether they want to perform abortions, to what gestational length and all that kind of thing.

The Canadian Medical Association passed a policy around the time of the Morgenthaller decision in 1988. Briefly, the policy is on induced abortion. It says:

“Abortion on request is recommended up to twenty weeks, and after that under exceptional circumstances.”

It doesn’t really go into [what these “exceptional circumstances” might be]. It just leaves it up to the Doctor’s discretion.

In practice what happens is that very, very few Doctors in Canada perform abortions after twenty weeks. It’s obviously a more complex procedure – it’s more skilled, so not many doctors are trained in it to begin with, meaning it’s only available at a few centres.

In almost all cases, what usually happens, especially later on in pregnancy, an abortion is sought because of lethal foetal abnormalities, where the foetus can’t survive the birth. Other cases most often involve serious health or life endangerment problems for women.

And sometimes a late abortion might be performed in especially socially compelling circumstances, which would be at the discretion of a doctor. For example, if a very young girl was in denial about her pregnancy, or a sexual assault or a domestic abuse survivor sought an abortion. In situations like that though it’s on a case-by-case basis according to the Doctor.

How has the full decriminalisation of abortion affected women in Canada?
The overall effect was that abortion was kind of incorporated into a regular part of healthcare, and even though we also had stand-alone clinics doing abortions, hospitals still were doing the bulk of abortions at the beginning.

They still do almost half so I think having that hospital-based service is important for integrating abortion care into regular healthcare instead of having it so isolated the way it is in the United States, for example.

I think it’s also shown that it’s working – we’ve gone for 25 years without law and nothing bad has happened – women are not presenting for 9 month abortions so they can fit into their prom dress, and so on.

—-

Back to Ireland. Performing or procuring an abortion in Ireland is a criminal act, with persons found guilty of either risking life imprisonment.

Savita Halappanavar’s life ended because medics put the life of her unborn child – who they knew would die anyway – before the life of the woman in front them. Because those medics were prevented by law from performing a procedure that would have saved her, and because the politicians who have the power to legislate so that no woman ever has to go through this again have refused to.

On Wednesday, hundreds of people gathered in protest outside the Dail (Dublin’s equivalent to the House of Commons), to express outrage at this tragedy and, once again, demand the government decriminalize abortion in this country.

Surely this time, now that Ireland and its abortion laws are under international scrutiny, something has got to give.

I’m tweeting angrily about Savita, Dorries and the state of reproductive rights in Ireland @AlisandeF

Dear Sisters:
I am writing to you from the Dominican Republic. The situation here is really worrying at this point. Last week the Congress gave the first approval to the new Penal Code, that will maintain abortion illegal under all circumstances and even worsening the situation for women compared to the past, among other things violating women’s rights regarding violence against women (VAW), (several improvements in the Law on VAW in 1997 have been swept away…).

Next Wednesday the Congress will read the Penal Code Proposal again, with the risk that it could be finally approved. Locally, we are a big movement protesting, but who knows if it would be enough?!

We would really appreciate signs of protest reaching the Dominican Congress from our sisters worldwide. I will send you the e-mail addresses as soon as I obtain them since locally we are not using email this way. Meanwhile please find below the declaration issued by the protest movement to the press this morning, with details about the content of the new Penal Code being discussed in the Congress. I preferred not to wait till the last minute to alert you.All the best, Elga Salvador